[WSBAPT] Definition of "Statute of Limitations" in RCW 11.40.090

[Eric Nelsen]

Doug--I did some research on this a while back. Don't have cites at my fingertips, but here are the general principles as I remember them.

RCW 11.40.051 bar is not a statute of limitations: it is a statute of nonclaim, meaning the cause of action itself expires. Statute of limitations merely bars a remedy rather than extinguishing the cause of action. BUT the application of RCW 11.40.051 is actually pretty limited in the scope of claims it kills.

The regular statute of limitations applicable to a cause of action continues to run even after the defendant dies, and even after a creditor claim is filed. So the plaintiff must file the lawsuit within the ordinary statute of limitations even if the creditor claim is filed.

The creditor claim process affects only claims for money owed by the general credit of the decedent: as in, decedent owed Bob $500.

It doesn't apply to security interests, so if Bob doesn't file a creditor claim but has a DOT securing the debt, Bob can still foreclose on the specific property even if he never files a claim and/or the 11.40.051 time limit has passed. (Thus making clear that 11.40.051 is not a statute of limitations.) Bob couldn't collect against the Estate in general if no claim is filed, but he can still foreclose.

It doesn't apply at all to claims for specific performance.

It doesn't apply to debts owed by a partnership of which the decedent was a partner.

It doesn't apply to claims regarding ownership of specific property--for example, if Bob and decedent were business partners, the business had tangible assets, the assets were in the Estate's possession, and Bob sued to regain possession of the assets.

The issue of profits of a business partnership is interesting. It might depend on whether or not Bob (as surviving partner) could identify a specific fund of money belonging to the partnership, versus asking for a general money judgment. If all profits were deposited to a specific bank account in decedent's name, but the money actually belonged to the partnership, Bob might be able to pursue a suit against the Estate for conversion or money-had-and-received, meaning the Estate has possession of cash not actually belonging to it. Conversion is the usual cause of action for property items wrongfully held by another, but there is case law saying the "conversion" cause of action doesn't apply to undifferentiated cash funds; instead, it's money-had-and-received. But I don't remember the exact dividing line between the two. If you have a stack of five specific $100 bills, I think you could file as a conversion action which is not subject to the creditor claim process because it's for possession of particular property. But I think (not sure, worth checking) the remedy for a money-had-and-received claim is a plain $500 money judgment, which implies that it would have to be filed as a creditor claim first.

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA  98144-3909
phone 206-625-0092
fax 206-625-9040

From: wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbapt-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Bratt
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 4:30 PM
To: wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBAPT] Definition of "Statute of Limitations" in RCW 11.40.090

Listmates:

RCW 11.40.090(4) states that "a claim may not be allowed if it is barred by a statute of limitations."

Obviously, if a claim is made against a Decedent's Estate, for a tort (not covered by a liability policy), the "statute of limitations" is three (3) years.  Similarly, if a claim is brought on the basis of a Promissory Note, the applicable "statute of limitations" is six (6) years from either the date of the Note, or since the date of the last payment made on the Note by the obligated party.

Are the time limits imposed under RCW 11.40.051 "a statute of limitations," which would, under RCW 11.40.090(4) not permit a PR to pay a claim that was not timely filed and served?

Assume that the Decedent had a business partner.  Assume that they had an oral agreement regarding splitting of profits.  Assume, at the time of death, the partners were in dispute as to how much was owed.  For whatever reason, the business partner did not make a claim against the Estate with a Creditor's Claim filed and served within the two (2) year time limits in RCW 11.40.051.  However, the three (3) year "statute of limitations" on oral agreements has not yet expired.

Is the business partner completely in the cold insofar as being able to collect against the Estate, because of the time limits set out in RCW 11.40.051?  Stated another way, do the time limits set out in RCW 11.40.051 constitute a complete bar to a claim, the basis of which is still within the normal three (3) year statute of limitations period?  (For purposes of this question, please do not consider Dead Man's Statute issues, or whether "actual notice" had, or had not, been given to the partner, given that he was a "reasonably ascertainable creditor."  The requested analysis is simply about the time limits involved in bringing claims against the Estate under these circumstances.)

I hope this is not too confusing an inquiry.  In my case, this involves family members who have become mired in a rather personal conflict because the surviving partner has become greedy and has orally claimed much more than he had coming to him.  The PR has resisted, and, in the meantime, the two (2) year time limits of RCW 11.40.051 have run (but not the three (3) year oral agreements statute of limitation), and the PR wants to know if RCW 11.40.051 is a complete defense against any claim of the business partner under these circumstances.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Best Regards,

Doug Bratt


Douglas J. Bratt
Lawyer

[Envelope scaled Terry]

Office: (360) 213-2040
 Fax: (360) 213-2030

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This email message may contain confidential or privileged information.  If you have received this message by mistake, please do not review, disclose, copy, or distribute the email. Instead, please notify us immediately by replying to this message or telephoning us.  Thank you.

NOTE:  I do not use encrypted email.  Messages sent to or from my office via email are not secure and may not be protected by attorney-client privilege.  This email address is not monitored at all times.  If your matter is urgent, please phone my office during regular business hours.

TAX ADVICE NOTICE: IRS Circular 230 requires us to advise you that, if this communication or any attachment contains any tax advice, the advice is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20180608/95c66342/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6770 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbapt/attachments/20180608/95c66342/image001.jpg>